Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

The one thing I am coming to dislike on this forum is that some people will make you qualify everything, regardless of it's relevance to the point itself.

If it helps, replace "religious conflict" with "conflict between two different cultural groups, the most prominent dividing line between the two being their religious affiliation."

How about "conflict between colonial power and indigenous population, the most prominent dividing line being their access to political power"?

One thing I am coming to dislike on this forum is the tendency to blame religious beliefs for armed conflict when the economic origins are easy enough to see. People may use religion to unify disparate reactionary or revolutionary elements, but if you think the motives of the Catholic Northerners have anything to do with transubstantiation indulgences you're not doing enough due diligence.

How about "conflict between colonial power and indigenous population, the most prominent dividing line being their access to political power"?

One thing I am coming to dislike on this forum is the tendency to blame religious beliefs for armed conflict when the economic origins are easy enough to see. People may use religion to unify disparate reactionary or revolutionary elements, but if you think the motives of the Catholic Northerners have anything to do with transubstantiation indulgences you're not doing enough due diligence.

I'm fully aware of the underlying reasons behind the northern irish Troubles, just as I am aware of how long the people you refer to as a "Colonial Power" have lived there. The fact of the matter is, the most prominent dividing lines between the two sides in present times is their religious differences. My personal opinion is that if you took away religion then the lines between the two sides would blur much faster over time, but I could be wrong, and we'll likely never know for sure. Either way, the actual causes behind the conflict are irrelevant to the point of this thread, the important point is that there has been and still is conflict.

__________________"I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

Sure, if you want to roll it up into a neat little assumption that satisfies whatever preconceived notions the Scots have about America, go right on ahead with that Second Amendment Genie Bottle meme. It probably can't hurt, after all.

All I'm saying is, the Second Amendment isn't the dominating factor in how Americans think about and enact gun control. In fact, it's misleading even to talk about "Americans" in this context. In reality, American gun control laws and attitudes are very diverse. Any narrative that begins and ends with the Second Amendment is too simplistic to be useful or informative in a discussion of American gun control.

Gun availability may not sync up with gun licensing and overall respect for the weapon (ie gun use may not sync with self defense) the question is "what is to be done?" Is it a government issue? Well if the government is an extension of the people's consideration then obviously it should be. So then it becomes of legal extenuation of what can be done. In the end I think government can only maintain a final response of the deaths/violence as is legal.

But...that's completely STUPID if the government can also legislate the use of arms beyond licensing towards use itself (IE government can also come between you and the trigger)

It can if only after the fact (government seems to be free to prosecute you to pull a trigger under circumstances...I agree with this) but can government of all kinds prevent you from sticking your finger in the trigger? I think so, but it's insanely radical. It would mean not removing guns but instead making an act of gun violence being completely harmful to the actor as well as those being acted on (ie those who shoot to kill will otherswise be killed) the same would work both ways. If you want to kill someone, you will absolutely die in the process.

That's total gun control.

__________________"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Sure, if you want to roll it up into a neat little assumption that satisfies whatever preconceived notions the Scots have about America, go right on ahead with that Second Amendment Genie Bottle meme. It probably can't hurt, after all.

All I'm saying is, the Second Amendment isn't the dominating factor in how Americans think about and enact gun control. In fact, it's misleading even to talk about "Americans" in this context. In reality, American gun control laws and attitudes are very diverse. Any narrative that begins and ends with the Second Amendment is too simplistic to be useful or informative in a discussion of American gun control.

Could you just answer the question please. By asking the question I have shown I have no preconceived notions.

Both are law review articles, the first from Yale, the second from Wake Forest, and the authors are not employed by the NRA - Levinson in partictular in The Embarrassing.. points out that he supports gun control.

Both are law review articles, the first from Yale, the second from Wake Forest, and the authors are not employed by the NRA - Levinson in partictular in The Embarrassing.. points out that he supports gun control.

I do not know if they are ignoring the 2nd amendment, but most states infringe upon gun ownership when writing their laws. Making simple possession of a firearm a felony is an infringement.

Ranb

By infringe do you mean it is a bad thing to have any gun control at all? Or are you just making the point that the Second Amendment allowed unrestricted possession but all States have decided to one extent or another to apply restrictions?

Rights don't really exist outside a legal framework and while prior english law wouldn't have had a problem with white male protestants having as many weapons as they liked (well as long as they didn't suffer from being poor of course) it wouldn't have really viewed that as a right.

The US chose to let the genie out of the bottle and I do not think anything can be done to get it back in.

I have an idea: Let's have some government agency pass guns to criminal gangs in Mexico. After a few hundred Mexican cops and politicians are dead, we can make a case for restricting gun sales in the US. Why didn't anyone think of this before?
Oh, wait..

Laws restrict citizens, if citizens obey laws. Constitutions restrict government agents, if government agents obey constitutions. The Second Amendment declares a right of the people to keep (i.e., own and have at hand) and bear (carry) "arms" (commonly understood as firearms, but also including knives, spears, morning stars, lucerne hammers, and flamethrowers). Do State legislators, municipal chiefs of police, and judges obey the US Constitution? Sometimes.

Quote:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;
...

Some observations:...
1. A "letter of Marque" is a written authorization from a government to the owner of a warship authorizing that owner to make war in the name of that government. It makes the difference between a privateer and a pirate. Sir Frances Drake operated under a secret letter of marque from the British government.
Full auto? Hell, the authors of the US Constitution expected that private citizens (well, trading companies, probably) would own warships.
2. Note the different treatment of the Army and Navy, with the Army limited to 2-year budgets. The authors of the Constitution really disliked standing armies and expected that armed citizens would be the nation's principal defense.
3. The first battles in the American war of independence, Lexington and Concord, 1775, occurred in response to British attempts to disarm the colonists. The Second Amendment isn't in the Constitution primarily so that people can hunt deer. The Second Amendment isn't in the Constitution primarily so that people can defend against robbers. The Second Amendment is in the Constitution so that Americans can kill the armed agents of their own government. It's a tripwire: when a government disarms you, you're on the path to the labor camp or gas chamber.

Rights don't really exist outside a legal framework and while prior english law wouldn't have had a problem with white male protestants having as many weapons as they liked (well as long as they didn't suffer from being poor of course) it wouldn't have really viewed that as a right.

I suspect that this is mistaken. "Common law" is unwritten and accepted. English common law recognized a right of self-defense.

To nineteenth century exponents of limited government, the checks and balances that preserved individual liberty were ultimately guaranteed by the right of the people to be armed. The preeminent Whig historian, Thomas Macaulay, labelled this "the security without which every other is insufficient," [1] and a century earlier the great jurist, William Blackstone, regarded private arms as the means by which a people might vindicate their other rights if these were suppressed. [2] Earlier generations of political philosophers clearly had less confidence in written constitutions, no matter how wisely drafted. J.L. De Lolme, an eighteenth century author much read at the time of the American Revolution [3] pointed out:

Quote:

But all those privileges of the People, considered in themselves, are but feeble defences against the real strength of those who govern. All those provisions, all those reciprocal Rights, necessarily suppose that things remain in their legal and settled course: what would then be the recourse of the People, if ever the Prince, suddenly freeing himself from all restraint, and throwing himself as it were out of the Constitution, should no longer respect either the person, or the property of the subject, and either should make no account of his conversation with the Parliament, or attempt to force it implicitly to submit to his will?--It would be resistance . . . the question has been decided in favour of this doctrine by the Laws of England, and that resistance is looked upon by them as the ultimate and lawful resource against the violences of Power. [4]

I have an idea: Let's have some government agency pass guns to criminal gangs in Mexico. After a few hundred Mexican cops and politicians are dead, we can make a case for restricting gun sales in the US. Why didn't anyone think of this before?
Oh, wait..

The US weapons market is so huge with so many guns of all types readily available that US is a good source, compared to other Western countries for those who want to commit crime in other countries. Mexico and formerly Northern Ireland are examples of that. Those guns are smuggled.

"The Home Office figures published today show that England and Wales are in the middle of the European murder league at 13.5 deaths per million population. Finland tops the table at 23.4, followed by Scotland at 21.4, and Ireland on 20 per million. Northern Ireland now has a murder rate well below Scotland at 15.2. Austria has the lowest murder rate in Europe at 6.1 per million."

Your wikipedia link, but I notice now it's a stat from 1994.

But the point stands, cultural and societal factors are much more important than gun laws.

NI had the Troubles, the US has a huge gang violence problem. If you live in the US and don't join a gang or hang out with gangbangers your chances of getting shot aren't much different than if you lived in western Europe.

By infringe do you mean it is a bad thing to have any gun control at all? Or are you just making the point that the Second Amendment allowed unrestricted possession but all States have decided to one extent or another to apply restrictions?

By infringe I mean it is a bad thing to ban a certain type of gun just because the legislature can get enough votes to do so. If a state legislature wants to ban a gun or place additional controls on it to prevent them from being used by criminals, then there should be a good reason for it; like those types of guns are popular with criminals.

Here are a few good examples of irresponsible gun control. CA added 50 BMG rifles to their list of assault weapons. This meant that previous owners could keep them, but new owners would be restricted to military, police and licensed dealers. Violent crime associated with these rifles in CA? Zero. Violent crime in the rest of the country? Very low. The punch line is that there is no other provision in the law to stop criminals from bringing them into the state and it very narrowly defines what a 50 BMG rifle is. A man in France designed the 50DTC, a shorter fatter version of the 50 BMG cartridge and offered his reamer dimensions to anyone for free, now these rifles are nearly as available as the 50 BMG and being sold legally in CA.

Back in 1994 when the federal government was trying to push through a crime bill with an assault weapons ban, WA State had their own version. Hundreds of people showed for committee hearings to oppose the AWB and that portion was removed from the bill. What stayed in the bill was a ban on short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns. These types of guns are required to be registered in the USA or they are contraband and the possessor subject to a $10k fine and 10 years in jail. Unregistered guns of this type were already illegal in WA so the bill only targeted those people who wished to buy them legally, not just the criminals who bought or made them illegally. When I wrote the author of the bill to ask if there was any crime associated with the legally owned guns and why they wanted to ban them, he responded that he knew of no crimes associated with them and they banned them just because they could. As far as I know from my public disclosure requests to the state, the crime rate in WA with legal SBS/SBR is also zero

When San Francisco tried to ban all handguns in the city limits, they exempted the usual police, military, licensed security and dealers, but they also exempted convicted criminals.

As you can see, gun control in the USA is normally aimed at the law abiding person, not at criminals.

The way I read the 2nd amendment, it affirms the right to keep and bear arms and the federal government should not be violating it by prohibiting certain guns or making registration requirements impossible to fulfill. I know many people do not like this, but if so, they need to abolish or amend the constitution instead of ignoring it.

By infringe I mean it is a bad thing to ban a certain type of gun just because the legislature can get enough votes to do so. If a state legislature wants to ban a gun or place additional controls on it to prevent them from being used by criminals, then there should be a good reason for it; like those types of guns are popular with criminals.

Here are a few good examples of irresponsible gun control. CA added 50 BMG rifles to their list of assault weapons. This meant that previous owners could keep them, but new owners would be restricted to military, police and licensed dealers. Violent crime associated with these rifles in CA? Zero. Violent crime in the rest of the country? Very low. The punch line is that there is no other provision in the law to stop criminals from bringing them into the state and it very narrowly defines what a 50 BMG rifle is. A man in France designed the 50DTC, a shorter fatter version of the 50 BMG cartridge and offered his reamer dimensions to anyone for free, now these rifles are nearly as available as the 50 BMG and being sold legally in CA.

Back in 1994 when the federal government was trying to push through a crime bill with an assault weapons ban, WA State had their own version. Hundreds of people showed for committee hearings to oppose the AWB and that portion was removed from the bill. What stayed in the bill was a ban on short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns. These types of guns are required to be registered in the USA or they are contraband and the possessor subject to a $10k fine and 10 years in jail. Unregistered guns of this type were already illegal in WA so the bill only targeted those people who wished to buy them legally, not just the criminals who bought or made them illegally. When I wrote the author of the bill to ask if there was any crime associated with the legally owned guns and why they wanted to ban them, he responded that he knew of no crimes associated with them and they banned them just because they could. As far as I know from my public disclosure requests to the state, the crime rate in WA with legal SBS/SBR is also zero

When San Francisco tried to ban all handguns in the city limits, they exempted the usual police, military, licensed security and dealers, but they also exempted convicted criminals.

As you can see, gun control in the USA is normally aimed at the law abiding person, not at criminals.

The way I read the 2nd amendment, it affirms the right to keep and bear arms and the federal government should not be violating it by prohibiting certain guns or making registration requirements impossible to fulfill. I know many people do not like this, but if so, they need to abolish or amend the constitution instead of ignoring it.

Penn and Teller said it well; "Gun control is bull(bleep)".

Ranb

That is a list of bad gun control, which does not mean gun control is then a bad thing.

NI had the Troubles, the US has a huge gang violence problem. If you live in the US and don't join a gang or hang out with gangbangers your chances of getting shot aren't much different than if you lived in western Europe.

Bit chicken and egg though, isn't it? I mean, surely the gang violence wouldn't be so widespread if guns weren't as readily available to begin with?

__________________"I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

Can't speak for the rest of the country but well more than half of Chicago's murders are gang related. But data on this nationally is spotty at best because most police departments don't track it. But as I said it's also cultural, thus we have enormous differences in homicide rates among races. For example, the total number of homicides is nearly the same between blacks and whites in the US however blacks make up just 12% of the population. So obviously there are cultural factors even in the US that are far more influential than gun laws. If gun laws were the primary influence on homicide rates we wouldn't see such widely disparate numbers in different groups under the same laws.

Bit chicken and egg though, isn't it? I mean, surely the gang violence wouldn't be so widespread if guns weren't as readily available to begin with?

Then you should have no trouble demonstrating that gun laws in the US are the primary predictor of gun homicide rates. You'd expect, for example, that Vermont with its lax gun laws would have a far higher homicide rate than in Illinois, which has some of the strongest gun laws.

If it is not gun laws then it is a cultural matter whereby Americans are more likely to shoot at each other than people from other countries in a given situation.

Yes, this is the case. It seems very much related to poverty. Hither crime rates are associated with areas having the lowest household incomes, but I'll have to do some digging to find you a good citation for that.

Can't speak for the rest of the country but well more than half of Chicago's murders are gang related. But data on this nationally is spotty at best because most police departments don't track it. But as I said it's also cultural, thus we have enormous differences in homicide rates among races. For example, the total number of homicides is nearly the same between blacks and whites in the US however blacks make up just 12% of the population. So obviously there are cultural factors even in the US that are far more influential than gun laws. If gun laws were the primary influence on homicide rates we wouldn't see such widely disparate numbers in different groups under the same laws.

You are correct regarding gangs and homicide rates but I wouldn't call the problem cultural. I think it's based on poverty, and as your mayor said recently after a gang-related murder of a 7-year old:

"Since 2006, 90% of the Mexican crime guns submitted for tracing originated from gun dealers in the United States.10"

Just a note on this, as it comes up a lot: The 90% refers to the guns that Mexico expects to be of US origin and therefore send for tracing. The actual proportion of Mexican crime guns originating from the USA is MUCH lower. From February 2011, Stratfor Global Intelligence:

" reported almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States"

Yes, this is the case. It seems very much related to poverty. Hither crime rates are associated with areas having the lowest household incomes, but I'll have to do some digging to find you a good citation for that.

It is an odd analysis in that the chart 2 showing murders per 100,000 prefaced by “guns don’t kill people, murderers do.” shows that the US is the most murderous out of the Western nations. Then the preface for the next chart on homicides per civilian gun and how that is related to poverty is prefaced It would also help to shoot down some of the “America is a uniquely violent place” garbage. But that has been shown not to be true by the preceding graph

One issue it does not deal with is that guns are easier to use to kill than other methods of killing. It fails to acknowledge that allowing millions of people to possess millions of the most effective killing weapons is going to result in the highest number of deaths, which it does, as shown by chart 2.

Within that propensity to have and use guns there are other correlations to to do with poverty, race etc. But that does not get away from the clear correlation between Americans and other Western countries of a propensity to shoot plus lots of guns = a much higher gun death rate.

Just a note on this, as it comes up a lot: The 90% refers to the guns that Mexico expects to be of US origin and therefore send for tracing. The actual proportion of Mexican crime guns originating from the USA is MUCH lower. From February 2011, Stratfor Global Intelligence:

" reported almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States"

"According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, in the past five years (2006-11) 94,000 weapons have been recovered from Mexican drug cartels, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States."

The trace operation has been very unsuccessful

"Although the number of trace requests from Mexico has increased since February 2006, most guns seized in Mexico are not traced.[24] Moreover, most trace requests from Mexico do not succeed in identifying the gun dealer who originally sold the gun, and the rate of successful traces has declined since the start of Project Gunrunner. Most Mexican crime gun trace requests that were successful were untimely and of limited use for generating investigative leads."

at least in part by only a minority of guns being submitted for tracing

"In 2009, Mexico reported that they held 305,424 confiscated firearms,[30] but submitted data of only 69,808 recovered firearms to the ATF for tracing between 2007 and 2009.[9]"

In the end "Research has shown that most weapons and arms trafficked into Mexico are from gun dealers in the United States.[100]"

It is an odd analysis in that the chart 2 showing murders per 100,000 prefaced by “guns don’t kill people, murderers do.” shows that the US is the most murderous out of the Western nations. Then the preface for the next chart on homicides per civilian gun and how that is related to poverty is prefaced It would also help to shoot down some of the “America is a uniquely violent place” garbage. But that has been shown not to be true by the preceding graph

One issue it does not deal with is that guns are easier to use to kill than other methods of killing. It fails to acknowledge that allowing millions of people to possess millions of the most effective killing weapons is going to result in the highest number of deaths, which it does, as shown by chart 2.

Within that propensity to have and use guns there are other correlations to to do with poverty, race etc. But that does not get away from the clear correlation between Americans and other Western countries of a propensity to shoot plus lots of guns = a much higher gun death rate.

That same chart shows that non-gun homicides are far higher in the US, the implication being that people commit murder with what they have available. Taking guns out of the equation will still leave the US with the highest per-capita homicide rate on the graph.